Electronic and visual identification for sheep and goats in Brazil

Transcription

1 A.L. G. Monteiro, O. R. Prado, F. Hentz, K. F. D. Campos, M. T. P. Peres, L. H. Kowalski, & R. Batista **This study is part of a Research Project evaluating electronic devices for use in small ruminants in Brazil ***Ethics Committee for Animal Use at Federal University of Paraná, Brazil (Protocol 32/10) Electronic and visual identification for sheep and goats in Brazil

2 Introduction In Brazil, the use of EID in small ruminants is not yet required by the national legislation; commonly, ear tags, collars and tatoos are used (visual identification); In tropical regions/extensive systems, the internal ID devices take advantage over ear tags/colars as reduce the risks of ear tag losses and tissue damage/lesions on the ear;

3 Introduction Nevertheless, the farmers have been improving animal control, in order to receive the bonus paid by the sheep meat Co-ops in some regions, that are seeking higher control of herd information.

4 Objective: to evaluate four electronic ruminal boluses and commonly used plastic ear tags in five experiments, in medium and long terms, in semi-intensive systems for Brazilian sheep and goats; Retention rate Readability Time of administration

5 Material and Methods: local Northeast: 10 million sheep; 8 million goats South: 5 million sheep; 340 thousand goats

6 Paraná state, South Brazil Reserva: Private Farm Exp. 3 and 4 Colombo: Private Farm Exp. 1 Federal Univ. PR: Experiment 2 and 5

7 Material and Methods: animals Ile de France (n=169) Suffolk (n=92) Boer goats (n=22)

8 Ceramic Bolus (glass-encapsulated transponder 32 x 3.8 mm, Texas Instr., Dallas, TX; 134,2 khz) Certag Saint Gobain Ceramics and Plastics (CoorsTek of Brazil)

9 Metallic balling gun + adapters to bolus size Gesimpax (Barcelona, Spain)

10 Plastic Ear Tag visual identification Foking poliurethane retangular ear tag 4,25g; lenght x width 52mm x 15mm Allflex poliurethane ear tag 5,2g; lenght x width 38mm x 35mm

11 Experiment 1 Suffolk, weaned male lambs (n=35)

12 * ear tag, polyurethane 4.25g; **mini bolus 20g; 57 x 11.2 mm Experiment 1 Ear tag 4.25 g (n=35), at birth Mini-bolus 20.0 g (n = 35), weaning

13 Table 1. Age (d) and weight (kg) of Suffolk lambs on ID devices administration Visual ear tag * Mini bolus** Animals (n) Age (days, admin.) 1 (birth) 77,5±12,9 (weaning) Live weight (kg) 4,5±0,9 22,4±2,6 *ear tag, polyurethane 4.25g; **mini bolus 20g and 57 x 11.2 mm, d 3.0 g/cm 3

14 Experiment 2 Suffolk ewes (n=57)

15 Experiment 2 Standard bolus 74.4 g (n=18) Small bolus g (n=18) Mini-bolus g (n=21) Standard Small Mini Diameter (mm) 19.3± ,76± ±0.07 Lenght (mm) 69.8± ± ±0.33 Weight (g) 74.4± ± ±0.48 Volume (ml) Density (g/cm 3 ) 3.37± ± ±0.02

16 Table 2. Age (yr) and weight (kg) of Suffolk ewes on ID devices administration Standard Bolus* Small Bolus Mini bolus Animals (n) ** Age (years, admin.) Live weight (kg) 6.1± ± ± ± ± ±11.0 *standard bolus 74.4 g ; small bolus g; mini bolus g **one ewe death after 3 mo, with high worm burden

17 Experiment 3 Ile de France ewes (n=127)

18 Experiment 3 Standard bolus 74.4 g (n=43) Interm. bolus 40,2 g (n=42) Mini-bolus g (n= 42) Standard Interm. Mini Diameter (mm) 19.3± ± ±0.07 Lenght (mm) 69.8± ± ±0.33 Weight (g) 74.4± ± ±0.48 Volume (ml) Density (g/cm 3 ) 3.37± ± ±0.02

19 Table 3. Age (yr) and weight (kg) of Ile de France ewes on ID devices administration Standard bolus* Interm. bolus Mini bolus Animals (n) Age (years, 3.45± ± ±1.9 admin.) Live weight (kg) 62.6± ± ±17.1 *Standard bolus 74.4 g; Interm. bolus 40,23 g; mini-bolus g

20 Experiment 4 Ile de France ewe lambs (n=42)

21 Experiment 4 Ear Tag 5.2 g (n=42), on birth Small bolus* g (n=19) Mini-bolus* g (n=23) *weaning Ear Tag Small Mini Diameter (mm) 14,76± ±0.07 Lenght/ear size (mm) 35.3 x38 mm 48.5± ±0.33 Weight (g) 5.25± ± ±0.48 Volume (ml) 9 7 3

22 Table 4. Age (d) and weight (kg) of Ile de France ewe lambs on ID devices administration Ear tag* Small bolus Mini bolus Animals (n) Age (days, ± ±9.8 admin.) Live weight (kg) 62.6± ± ±17.1 *ear tag, polyurethane 5.2 g ; small bolus g; mini-bolus g

23 Experiment 5 Crossbreed Boer goats (n=22)

24 Experiment 5 Standard bolus 74.4 g (n=22) Small ear tag (n=22) Big ear tag (n=22) Standard bolus Small ear tag Big ear ta Diameter (mm) 19.3±0.05 Lenght/ ear size (mm) 69.8± x 15 mm 42 x 48 mm Weight (g) 74.4±0.78 Volume (ml) 22 Density (g/cm 3 ) 3.37±0.08

25 Table 5. Age (yr) and weight (kg) of Boer goats on ID devices administration Standard bolus* Small ear tag Big ear tag Animals (n) Age (year, admin.) Live weight (kg) 54.4± ± ±1.0 *standard bolus 74,4 g ; small ear tag, polyurethane, 4,25 g; big ear tag, polyurethane, 7,1 g;

26 Boluses were applied by a trained operator using a balling gun and the adapters for each bolus size; All devices were read before administration to check possible electronic failures; The bolus was released with a slight backward movement, stimulating the reflex of deglutition (Caja et al., 1999) After administration, each bolus was read in static conditions (animal restrained) using static transceiver (reader; SG 1.5, Saint Gobain) connected to a panel antena (80 x 65 cm, SG), with average read of 60 cm. All devices were read at d 1, wk 1, and every month until 6/12 months;

27 Material and Methods (*adapted Caja et al., 1999)

28 Data analysis Experimental design was completely randomized and the animals the experimental units; Retention rates were analysed with the CATMOD procedure on the basis of the categorical nature of the variables; Data related to time of swallowing/admin. of devices were analysed by ANOVA using the general linear model (GLM); Devices losses, read failures and readability were presented in descriptive form. Statistical package SAS 9.0 (SAS Institute. Inc., Cary, N.C.)

29 Variables Results Experiment 1 Table 1. Monitoring of electronic and visual ID devices in Suffolk lambs over six and 12 months. Plastic Ear Tag Mini-Bolus Shed/pastures (6 mo.) Number of animals Readability, % Retention rate, % Pastures (12 mo.) Readability, % Retention rate, % 97,1** 100 *ear tag, polyurethane 4.25g; **mini bolus 20g and 57 x 11.2 mm, d 3.0 g/cm 3 **one plastic ear tag loss

30 Results Experiment 2 Table 2. Monitoring of intra-ruminal ID devices in Suffolk ewes over 6 and 12 months. Variables Mini Bolus Small Bolus Standard Animals, n Electronic failure, n Retention rate, % (6 m.) Readability, % (6 mo.) Retention rate, % (12 mo.) ** 100 Readability, % (12 mo.) Bolus loss, n Swallowing time, s 9.5±2.7a 8.3±2.0a 32.9±6.9b *standard bolus 74.4 g ; small bolus g; mini bolus g; ** loss of one small bolus

31 Figure 1. Correlation between ewe weight at administration and swallowing time for the 3 bolus types.

32 Variables Results Experiment 3 Table 3. Monitoring of intra-ruminal ID devices in Ile de France ewes over six months. Mini-Bolus Interm. Bolus Standard Bolus Number of animals Retention rate, % Readability, % 97,6** *standard bolus 74.4 g ; Interm. bolus 40,23 g; mini bolus g **Electronic failure = 1

33 The anatomical localization of the bolus in the reticulum, verified by radiography using portable X-ray equipment;

34 Variables Results Experiment 4 Table 4. Monitoring of intra-ruminal and visual ID devices in Ile de France ewe lambs over six months. Device Mini-Bolus* Small Bolus Plastic Ear Tag Number of animals Readability, % Retention rate, % Swallowing time, s** 6.34 ± 2.36a 4.45 ± 1.8b - *mini bolus g; small bolus g; ear tag 5,25 g, polyurethan ; **distinct letters on the same line differ (P<0.05); **loss of one ear tag

35 Variables Results Experiment 5 Table 5. Monitoring of intra-ruminal and visual ID devices in crossbreed Boer goats over six months. Big Ear Tag Small Ear Tag Standard Bolus Number of animals Readability, % Retention rate, % 95.5** Admin. time, s *standard bolus 74,4 g ; small ear tag, polyurethane, 4,25 g; big ear tag, polyurethane, 7,1 g; ** after 3 mo., loss of one big ear tag, polyurethane, 7,1 g;

36 Final considerations All the management activities (ewes shearing, AI protocols, mating, feed changing, lambs weaning) - during the monitoring, with no effects on the EID; According to ICAR (2012), retention rate should be over 99% at 6 mo.; In general, most of the EID devices were suitable for the prestomach retention -sheep and goats- and the time for administration was acceptable; animal weight on the administration should be considered; Readability failures and losses of visual devices were observed and it should be often highlighted to the farmers; Higher number of animals should be tested; An economic analysis performed along with the electronic devices industry can contribute to the Brazilian farmers choice;

37 Federal University of Paraná, Brazil National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) Ministry of Science and Technology (MCT) Sheep and Goat Production and Research Center Federal University of Paraná, Brazil